Now it seems, as the 2012 Presidential campaign gets underway that, from the very first day of this President’s term, a plot was devised to – what? – well, to use Rush’s words, to make him fail. Or, to quote Mitch McConnell, to ensure that this President only gets one term.

And their method?

Just say no. No matter what, no matter how much any policy proposed or endorsed by this President would help this country, even these representatives’ own constituents, just say no. Just oppose it. Smack it down. Flat.

And that’s what they did, as explained below:-

People aren’t stupid. The general public sussed this lot long ago – that’s the same general public who sussed when these assholes told lies about what the President did and didn’t do.

I don’t know what makes me angrier – having this made public now, or spending the last three years seething and arguing and figuratively beating my head against the wall at the plethora of so-called Progressives who jumped on the pejorative bandwagon of petty discontent in bitching, griping and carping about the President not fulfilling their Disneyland agenda and, inadvertantly, aiding and abetting the Republicans in their quest to down the Presidency.

Either way, actions by both sides were damned disgraceful. The Republicans were supposed to be the opposition. I can forgive their conniving ignorance, but people from the Left? Please don’t insult my intelligence – and that also goes for the person presenting this report. Ed Schultz, amongst others, did a helluva lot of harm, including telling people not to vote in the 2010 Midterm elections, in order to teach the President and the Democrats a lesson.

Well, Ed and his ilk learned a lesson from that, themselves, at our expense. And we the people, the real Liberals, won’t forget that easily.

Of course, if it had gone wrong, I’m sure the question of ownership would be just as earnestly argued on both sides, right?

In Berry’s world, this is further evidence of creeping Obama fascism. In the Marine Corps, it’s further evidence that sedition is still not acceptable in the ranks even when the president is a Democrat. Stein’s “other than honorable” discharge is richly deserved: he hated the President more than he loved his country. That puts him in the same category as Terry Lakin, the pathetic birther colonel discharged for refusing a lawful deployment order.

In fact, Stein, who suddenly has a new radio show, has embraced the United States Justice Foundation, a right wing agit-prop shop known for birther lawsuits. The AP did not include this information when they reported on his discharge, referring to USJF executive director Gary Kreep only as Stein’s attorney. The aptly-named Kreep is in fact one of the most widely-recognized birther “activists” in the nation.

It is bad enough that Michael Berry promotes this sort of drivel as a freedom movement. To really appreciate the depth of his design, however, one must look at some of his ensuing posts. Later that same day, Berry posted a three minute video of Congresswoman Yvette Clarke with the headline, “Yvette Clark: The Tea Party Is Racist, Crazy, And Ugly.”

That’s a thin-skinned take on the video, in which Clarke, an African American, refers to the infamous 2010 protest outside of Congress during passage of the Affordable Care Act:

They came up in the hundreds of thousands. So we couldn’t walk outside of our office without tripping over tea party members. And these were individuals that had no problem with racial epithets, they had no problem with cursing and spitting and everything else. They came to intimidate members out of passing the Affordable Care Act…They really just showed the ugliest sides of America that you can imagine.

All of which is true, of course, except for “hundreds of thousands;” it was only a few thousand. Tea partiers deny there is any racism in their movement, but the omnipresence of racist imagery and language and idiotic birther nonsense within tea party activism belies their denials.

This kind of overreaction from Berry is typical of right wing sophistry: outrage at the alleged insult negates the criticism, and prevents any fair-minded assessment of the Congresswoman’s larger point about the necessity of Democratic activism. Digby calls this “intellectual violence.” When in power, Republicans can defend Bush-era horrors; when in the minority, they project the image of jackbooted government thugs on Democrats.

It is only “big government tyranny” when they’re not in charge of it.

Yesterday, Berry linked to this story about Tamaria Epps, an African American woman arrested in Florida for disorderly conduct after allegedly shouting “F**k you nigger. You can’t tell me what to do. Obama owns this motherfu**er!” This choice of obscure local news is quite deliberate; the story Berry wants to tell is that violent black people are everywhere, and they all love Obama.

Later in the day, Berry posted a clip of Vice President Joe Biden’s remark at New York University Law School that President Obama “has a big stick.” Biden was of course invoking Theodore Roosevelt, and by name; but Mr. Berry accompanied the video with two clips from the film Blazing Saddles.

Of all the penis-based jokes available on YouTube, why would Berry choose ones that invoke interracial sex and phallic racial stereotypes? Perhaps the story he wants to tell is that Obama and his negro army are not just dangerous, but hypersexualized? It wouldn’t be the first time this particular disgusting meme had currency in the wingnutosphere.

Finally, Berry wrapped up his Thursday blogotubing with a link to The Daily Howler Caller‘s story about Judicial Watch’s cost estimates for the First Lady’s 2010 trip to Spain. Judicial Watch, you’ll remember, was famous for its conservative legal attacks on the Clinton White House.

This may seem like just another conservative hypocrisy — no one complained when Laura Bush went to Paris for the Spring, or the Bush family spent gobs of taxpayer dough in Africa, or flew home to Crawford in Air Force One several times a year — but in fact this meme enjoys a special place in right wing cosmology.

Not only are the Obamas installing tyranny, you see, but they’re all about taxpayer largesse for themselves and their evil negro army: food stamps, welfare, slavery reparations — wink wink, nudge nudge! — are all part of the redistribution scheme. Which is where racism gets sublimated into class war, because these are “moochers” and “parasites” on the “producers.”

In short, Mike Berry’s blog is no different from previous incarnations of the right wing paranoid reactionary clown show examined in this blog. What makes it frightening is that every major metropolitan area in the United States has at least one Mike Berry, usually more, pushing this garbage. Berry is just another Glenn Beck channeling fringe ideas into the mainstream. Too bad he’s not the only one.

While disappointed, marijuana activists have no one but themselves to blame if they invested too much in a president. For as I keep saying, presidents don’t make the laws — especially presidents who understand constitutional law. Obama clarified his administration’s medical marijuana policy to Rolling Stone this week:

What I specifically said (during the campaign) was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana – and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law. I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, “Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books.” What I can say is, “Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.” As a consequence, there haven’t been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes. (Emphasis mine)

Demurring on marriage equality with the portentous phrase “I’m not going to make news in this publication,” the president instead talked about the process of reversing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell:

I’ve made clear that the issue of fairness and justice and equality for the LGBT community is very important to me. And I haven’t just talked about it, I’ve acted on it. You’ll recall that the last time you and I had an interview, we were getting beat up about “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the LGBT community. There was skepticism: “Why’s it taking so long? Why doesn’t he just do it through executive order?” I described very specifically the process we were going to go through to make sure that there was a buy-in from the military, up and down the chain of command, so that it would be executed in an effective way. And lo and behold, here we are, and it got done. (Emphasis mine)

On Wall Street corruption prior to his administration, and the absence of criminal prosecutions during his administration:

First of all, we’re a nation of laws. So in some cases, really irresponsible practices that hurt a lot of people might not have been technically against the law. They might have been the wrong thing to do, but prosecutors are required to actually build cases based on what the law is. That’s part of the reason we’ve passed Wall Street reform: to make much clearer what is prohibited and what is not, to set up rules and regulations that say, “You can’t do this, and if you do do it, there are going to be consequences.” (Emphasis mine)

Of course, if Overton Windows worked according to “theory of change” then all of this would make Obama exactly the opposite of teapublican caricature. Right wing signage and rhetoric dresses him up as a dictator, while left wing caricatures have him too weak and conciliatory — not enough of a dictator. The firebagger’s disappointment is the mirror of the teabagger’s rage, with both proceeding from false precepts.

Repeating myself for what feels like the ten thousandth time: no president can usher in a progressive agenda on their own, and certainly not the full range of issues progressives might care about. That’s not how it works, or has ever worked. Congress writes the laws, which is why midterm teapublican organizing was first and foremost about taking power in that branch.

There is no mirror to that activity on the left today. If you want new federal drug laws or to do away with old ones, change Congress. If you’re upset about indefinite detention provisions snuck into must-pass legislation in secret Senate committee sessions, then change Congress. If you want laws that curb the excesses of Wall Street, change Congress. If you want marriage equality, change Congress.

It’s not hard to understand, it’s just hard to do — whereas complaining that you didn’t get your cookie is easy.

Of course, limousine liberals would celebrate the first event and fingerpoint at the Right on the third, but it seems that the issue associated with the first event – the legalisation of recreational drugs – is what’s really got the Progressive Left angry. I mean, like really, really, really angry – angry enough to stay home from the polls in November.

Because, you know, Puritopians or EmoProgs or whatever just have to have something about which they can be angry with the President.

Otherwise, life isn’t worth living.

This was proven in the online Overtime segment of Real Time last night.

Just start off the whine about the President poo-poohing the idea of legalising drugs, and all the usual cockroach talking points come scurrying from the woodwork.

Thomas Frank: Obama promised to repeal NAFTA.

Chrystia Freeland (who’s a mutant cross between Sarah Jessica Parker, Jennifer Aniston and Megan Mullaly): Gitmo’s still open, Gitmo’s still open!

And, of course, the two resident conservatives have suddenly become all-too-sympathetic to the plight of poor pot smokers, nationwide.

Look, I would love to see pot legalised. And taxed for revenue. But for all this posturing and expostulating, this panel (and its moderator) still exhibit an amazing amount of ignorance when it comes to the powers of the Presidency (which ain’t much).

End NAFTA? Repeal it?

End Gitmo? Didn’t the President try to do just that?

But in both these cases, the eminent talking heads, and Bill, are ignoring the part played by a very important player in our government … Congress. And the last time I looked, the House belonged to the Republicans, and the Senate is only being held by Democratic fingernails.

But, hey … even the Buffett Rule failed the Senate test. I guess what Bill Maher observed about that holds true about NAFTA, Gitmo and marijuana … something to do with a black President.

Sometimes, your allies do a helluva good job masquerading as enemies.

And finally … a special word for the avowed “liberals” on the panel – yes, that’s YOU, Maher and Frank … it’s PRESIDENT Obama. Or maybe your consistent propensity with referring to the President by his last name only has, you know, something to do with him being a black President. ]]> http://www.osborneink.com/2012/04/why-learn-civics-when-its-so-much-fun-pissing-on-the-president.html/feed 0 http://www.osborneink.com/2012/04/morning-awful-ted-and-loesch.html http://www.osborneink.com/2012/04/morning-awful-ted-and-loesch.html#comments Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:00:51 +0000 Matt Osborne http://www.osborneink.com/?p=20459 Continue reading →]]> There is something not normal about a person who can hobnob with Secret Service agents and then speak of the man they guard with their lives as a coyote that should be shot. Ted Nugent will be treated like any other crazy person who talks about shooting an American president, but the sickening Dana Loesch wants to treat him like a hero:

Ted Nugent calls the Secret Service’s investigation of his incendiary comments “classic Saul Alinsky” and then proceeds to prove that he doesn’t know the first thing about Saul Alinsky. There is nothing entertaining about this, and let it not pass as entertainment. It isn’t rock and roll, either, but something else.

I posted a few weeks ago about the farm nontroversy in Michigan that Nugent references here. It’s not even about a federal regulation, but a state one.

“I don’t see any opportunity inside electoral politics this year,” long-time activist and former Ralph Nader spokesperson Kevin Zeese remarked.

The speakers called for building a “deeper” grassroots movement outside electoral politices to “build power first,” then maybe a robust third party or infrastructure several years down the road.

There is not enough facepalm in the world to express the dismay such dissonance inspires. “Former Ralph Nader spokesperson” should be a giant flashing warning light: Nader blew up the 2000 presidential race and left nothing behind. Twelve years ago, a “robust third party or infrastructure” was still “several years down the road,” too. Like Zeno’s Paradox, the moment for a third party of “real progressives” is always coming, but never, ever quite here yet.

“There’s always this emphasis on winning,” Occupy Wall Street’s Ian Williams said. “But do we want to win or do we want to transform the world?”

I will never understand the mentality that sees victory and transformation as separate and incompatible goals. How is transformation even possible without victory? How does a movement propose to change the laws when it refuses to get involved in making them, much less picking the people who will make them? Magic? Prayer?

How does one “build power” without, you know, building power?

Moral power does not translate into a changed system on its own. Neither does popularity. Neither do “the facts.” As Stalin might ask, how many divisions do the facts have? Or how many votes in Congress? Because that is the calculus of politics: victory is a prerequisite to change in every political system that has ever existed. Without power, you have nothing but wishes and dreams.

“Social transformation” is already underway. As I’ve chronicled here countless times, the basic challenge for conservative orthodoxy is that generational, demographic, and public opinion shifts threaten its political supremacy. Conservatism — particularly its Grover Norquist, drown-gummint-in-a-bathtub version — is desperate to preserve its waning power against the tide of history, and so we see teapublicans racing to undo American liberal civilization as fast as they can.

This was happening, and is still happening, and will keep happening, without any help from Occupy.

Contrary to the right wing caricature of Alinskyites running rampant, Occupy increasingly represents the rejection of effective, pragmatic action in favor of ineffective radicalism. This is actually a much older trend than Occupy, however. There is no “left” left, and what people call “the left” is actually a broad category for factions directing their energies all over the map of incoherency. To wit:

Protest against low transit funding on Wednesday is directed at the wrong audience

On Wednesday, people will gather at the Chicago Transit Authority headquarters (567 W Lake Street) to protest “inadequate funding and policies”, according to the Red Eye. Members from at least two groups (LVEJO and Citizens Taking Action) will join to protest public-private partnerships and to support laid off bus drivers. This is part of a larger National Day of Action for Public Transportation called by Occupy Boston.

They are protesting in the wrong location. They should be rallying at locations where there are people who can do something about underfunded transit: the offices of elected officials, like at City Hall and those of state and federal Congresspersons scattered around town. (Emphasis mine)

Kevin Zeese, the Naderite quoted above, also told Occupiers not to get involved in the Obama campaign this year. Remember how well that worked out in 2010? One thousand abortion bills, dozens of voter ID bills, and countless attacks on unions and teachers in state legislatures argue against the stay-home-because-we’re-mad-at-Obama approach. Yet that kind of cliquish stupidity remains a popular conceit.

What Chris Hedges (also not an Obama fan) calls The Death of the Liberal Class is more applicable to the president’s critics than the president. He is in fact more popular than they are, and has actual power to actually change things. So rather than sit out 2012, a transformative movement should dress him in coattails:

If Obama’s weak approval rating stays at 47 percent, there is an 85 percent chance he wins reelection. Should it rise to 50 percent or better, which is the goal of the Obama-Biden campaign, he stands a 99 percent chance of winning.

“The Republican primaries are nothing more than an interesting side-show to an eventual Obama victory,” said Young, managing director of Ipsos Public Affairs’ U.S. polling. He tells Secrets: “Obama is the odds-on favorite barring some unforeseen random event. As such, we really should not be asking who will win the presidency but instead who will hold the House and Senate and will Obama be able to govern?” (Emphasis mine)

The greatest danger for Occupy is not that Obama might lose, but that he might win without them — or even against them, should they continue to define themselves against him. The danger for America is that Obama may be reelected without a Congress capable of passing, say, a simple transportation bill — putting us right back where we are today.

Ideally, the idealists will recognize this and act to give the reelected president a more ideal Congress. Realistically, I am not holding my breath. Tea party astroturf saw lots of attention to practical political goals: flipping the House of Representatives, electing “real conservatives,” and undoing the Affordable Care Act. The only equivalent coming out of Occupy so far is Obamacare, and that’s because it isn’t good enough. See how that works?

Tea parties took two years to achieve the level of irrelevance that Occupy threatens to reach in just six months. If this movement heeds the call to reject political empowerment for iconoclastic puritopian powerlessness, then participants should prepare themselves for eternal outsider status. That might make them feel good about themselves, but it will achieve absolutely nothing else for anyone — and reduce all the sacrifices they’ve made into a historical footnote.

On Monday’s show, Ed Schultz chose to concentrate on the unduly high level of open abuse various operatives of the Republican Party are heaping on the President now. His guests were Melissa Harris-Perry and James Peterson:-

Several points to be queried here:-

1. Why does every Chairman of the RNC inevitably look like a sex criminal? Mind you, Reince Priebus not only looks like one, his name sounds like a sexual disease.

2.I agree with Melissa Harris-Perry. Priebus shouldn’t apologise for likening the President to the perpertrator of a criminal act – in this case Captain Schettino, not only a criminal, but the ultimate coward, who abandoned his ship and its passengers in favour of his own safety. Such an analogy only serves to make the Republicans look like angry, sour-faced, cold-hearted bastards, with more than a smidgeon of racism thrown in.

3. I agree with James Peterson. Who the hell is Allen West? I’ll tell you: a coward. West is the prissy, little kid who stood behind the fence shouting insults at various people passing, but when confronted by someone challenging him, he would either walk back what he said or run. Peterson thinks West should be called out, invited to debate his points and be challenged. He won’t respond. What I would say to West is basically this: if you have a point to make, make it; and remember … you were supposed to be an officer and a gentleman, and now you’re an honourable gentleman, duly elected to serve your constituents, Republican and Democrat. Imagine how comfortable your Democratic constituents would feel having to contact you with a local problem? And as for the “gentleman” part of your job description, past and present, if your commanding officer never told you, if your daddy never told you, then your mamma sure as hell should have told you that you don’t slander a lady the way you’ve slandered Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And finally, if you reckon you’re the man to lead African-American Democrats off the DemocraTIC plantation, then stop trying to sound like a sassy slave talking to the white folk. Memo to Congressman West: Sarah Palin is not Miss Scarlett, and you are not Big Sam.

Later in Ed’s show, he hosted that old Professional Left nemesis Joan “I-Resent-Black-People” Walsh, who – just seven months ago – was reckoning that all vociferous supporters of the President were Republican trolls paid by Andrew Breitbart.

Now at virtually the eleventh hour, Joan – like a lot of others of her ilk – seem to be walking back a lot of their own Obama hatred, which got to be more than just a bit vitriolic, especially during the last two years. Of course, Joan had to blog about the treatment of the GOP’s treatment of the President (whom Joan now refers to as “a decent guy”).

I don’t agree with every move the president has made. But I think the more Republicans try to demonize him, the more most American voters will see the difference between the GOP caricature and the man they’ve come to know. I get more pro-Obama with each vicious anti-Obama attack. I’m sure the rest of his base does, too … Has there ever been a more decent, upstanding, all-American president, with his dog and his family and his Apollo Theatre song solos, treated more shamefully by his opponents? I’d be more horrified by the abuse if I wasn’t sure it was backfiring.

It’s 2012, an election year, and there’s a President who’s running for re-election who’s been vilified mercilessly by his own side as much as by the opposition; and whereas the opposition has been led cock-a-snoot by Fox News, our underminers have the Professional Left, who’ve suddenly awoken, smelled their designer coffee and realised that a lot of the pushback from people they’ve blocked from their blogs, twitterfeeds and Facebook pages is resonating -hence the new dance known as the Professional Left Moon Walk.

Lest you think we’ve forgotten, Joan and Ed (and, yes, Ed, you’ve done your fair share of undermining mischief too), we haven’t your words of wanton criticism, your dog whistles and your whining.

Here’s a tune by which to practice your Moon Walk dance. Enjoy:-

Cross-posted from Emilia Wahoo ]]> http://www.osborneink.com/2012/02/sex-lies-videotape-and-obama-derangement-syndrome.html/feed 0 http://www.osborneink.com/2012/01/scary-stupid-headupassitis.html http://www.osborneink.com/2012/01/scary-stupid-headupassitis.html#comments Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:00:42 +0000 Emilia1956 http://www.osborneink.com/?p=18430 Continue reading →]]>

By Emilia1956

For the umpteenth time, Hillary Clinton has said she’s leaving politics. She’s not interested in running for President. She’s finished. Done. Retired. For the time being. At least after this stint as Secretary of State.

According to an article in today’s Guardian, she’s bowing out of public life after the November elections.

She told state department employees on Thursday she was ready for a rest and is paying no attention to the Republican presidential candidate debates. She said she wanted to find out how tired she was after being first lady, senator, aspiring presidential candidate and finally the US secretary of state.

“I have made it clear that I will certainly stay on until the president nominates someone and that transition can occur [if Obama wins re-election,” she told a meeting. “But I think after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am.”

But, she appeared to leave the door open to a possible eventual return, adding to laughter from the crowd that “everyone always says that when they leave these jobs”.

I don’t know how many times this woman has to clarify her point. Besides, most Secretaries of State serve only one Presidential term anyway. Warren Christopher made way for Madeleine Albright. Colin Powell stepped aside for Condi Rice. And Hillary will defer to someone else – possibly John Kerry or Bill Richardson or even James Webb.

The Clintonistas hate that, but, as the article states, she’s not ruling out a return, and as much as Bill Keller and the rest of the herd might wish for a Vice-Presidential position on the 2012 ticket, she’s still seen by people like Ed Rendell as a viable Presidential candidate for 2016. Who knows?

As Hillary says, she’s got to retire to realise how tired she is, and at times during the past three years, she’s looked exhausted.

I wish Hillary well in whatever she does. I would have voted for her in 2008, had she won the nomination, and I’d vote for her in 2016, if she secures it then.

What’s scary about this announcement are the reactions by some of The Guardian‘s American commentators and their total and dangerous naivete.

Like jimbojamesiv:

Hillary’s departure would be a reason to vote for Barack, and, yet, Obama still blows, so I can’t.

Don’t vote, occupy and opt-out.

Stand by the principle that the system is broken beyond repair.

Do not legitimize the corruption by participating. It’s what each one of the decent persons must die, granted there aren’t a lot of them, but there are enough to topple all the corrupt regimes, which includes basically every so-called nation-state.

Or overhead. who’s clearly in over his own:-

Vote third party. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Then MonkEMan, apparently a sane voice in the wilderness of stupidity:-

Protesting by making yourself silent and powerless is stupid beyond belief. Protest and occupy – yes. But get out and vote as well.

Only to be answered by the perennially obtuse OldSlov:-

If nobody voted, then the current process would lose its legitimacy. That is sorely needed, because we effectively have a democratic dictatorship. We seem to be under the illusion that we have a choice when everything was decided a long time ago.

There seems to be a couple of stupidity epidemics raging at the moment. I can’t decide whether this singular resistance against voting is the legacy of the Occupy movement, which – whilst emphasizing income inequality – does nothing to alleviate this by encouraging people not to vote. Not voting, or voting third party, would give all the ammunition necessary to the party who’s insistent that income disparity should be even greater, that women and minorities give up any equal rights achieved and that education, environment and health suffer all the worse for it.

That’s not just stupidity; that’s cussed headupassitis – and that’s scary.

Cross-posted from Emilia Wahoo